Footnotes will pop up here when you click on them. Scroll down this page for a few notes about the notes.

You are reading the appendix to"The 37th Amendment," a novel by Susan Shelley.  Copyright 2002.  All rights reserved.  This material may not be republished, retransmitted, printed, copied or distributed in any manner, in whole or in part, without the written consent of the author.  Permission is granted for publication of short excerpts in the context of a review or commentary, provided the material is appropriately credited. 

(All links on this page will open in a new window.)

Supreme Court decisions can be found online at Findlaw, at this URL: 

<www.findlaw.com> 

and at Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute site at this URL (both as of 22 February 2002): 

<http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html>. 

Historical documents of the United States, including the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, can be found online at the Web site of the U.S. Congress: 

<http://thomas.loc.gov>. 

In the interests of readability, the paragraphing in some quotations has been altered, and some citations within opinions have been eliminated or moved to the footnotes. Titles are listed in full the first time they are cited and slightly abbreviated thereafter. Regarding the Latin abbreviations in the notes: "id." means "the same" and "ibid." means "from the same work." 

1 Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.; 501 U.S. 560 (1991). The three quotations from the justices' opinions may be found at 566, 587 and 592, respectively. 

2 Webster's American Biographies 680 (1984). 

3 Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution of the United States 1-2 (1913). 

4 Ibid., pp. 3-4. 

5 Ibid., p. 42. 

6 Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Second Edition [Paperback], 52-53, 77-80 (1997); Farrand, Framing of the Constitution 77 (1913). 

7 Federalist No. 45, Modern Library edition 303 (1937). 

8 Federalist No. 84, Modern Library edition 559 (1937). 

9 Charles J. Cooper, "Limited Government and Individual Liberty: The Ninth Amendment's Forgotten Lessons" in Eugene W. Hickok, Jr., editor, The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding 425 (1991); Berger, Government by Judiciary 55 (1997). 

10 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, at 176 (1803). 

11 Eugene W. Hickok, Jr., editor, The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding 4 (1991); Leonard W. Levy, Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution 163-5 (1988). 

12 Berger, Government by Judiciary 155 (1997). 

13 The amendment passed in the House but died in the Senate. Annals of Congress, vol. 1 (Washington D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834) pp. 424-49, cited in Hickok, The Bill of Rights 4 (1991). See also Levy, Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution 166-170 (1988). 

14 Annals of Congress, 755, cited in Berger, Government by Judiciary 156 (1997). 

15 Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804; cited in Berger, Government by Judiciary 293 (1997). The letter can be viewed online in the Library of Congress manuscript collection (the quote appears on page 2 of 3) at this URL, as of 22 February 2002:
<http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mtj/mtj1/031/0100/0171.jpg>  (Link opens in new window.)

16 Max Farrand, editor; The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 2:73 (1911), cited in Berger, Government by Judiciary 323 (1997). 

17 Farrand, Framing of the Constitution 70, 79, 119-120 (1913). 

18 Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 2:73, 1:97-98, 108 (1911), cited by Justice Hugo L. Black in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, at 514-5 [footnote 6] (1965), dissenting opinion. 

19 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7. 

20 William E. Leuchtenburg, The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt 238 (1995); Berger, Government by Judiciary 155 (1997); Levy, Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution 146 (1988). 

21 Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, at 250 (1833). 

22 Id. 

23 Charles Fairman, History of the Supreme Court of the United States, Volume VI, Reconstruction and Reunion, 1864-88, Part One 112-114 (1971). 

24 Berger, Government by Judiciary 32-33 (1997). 

25 U.S. Constitution, Article V. 

26 Congressional Globe, 38-1, 474; cited in Fairman, History of the Supreme Court, Part One 1172 (1971). 

27 Fairman, History of the Supreme Court, Part One 1193 (1971). 

28 Ibid. 

29 Charles Fairman, "Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?" 2 Stanford Law Review 44 (1949), cited in Berger, Government by Judiciary 32 (1997); Raoul Berger, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights 22-3 (1989). 

30 Fairman, History of the Supreme Court, Part One 1271 (1971). 

31 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 129, 134, 138 (1765-1769), cited in Berger, Government by Judiciary 30-31 (1997); Berger, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights 110 (1989). 

32 The Fifteenth Amendment, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," was certified to be in effect on March 30, 1870. 

33 Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Columbus, Ohio, September 16, 1859. The text of the speech may be found in Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, John G. Nicolay and John Hay, editors. (New York: Francis D. Tandy Company, 1894) 5:143-144. Additionally, the speech is available online at the Northern Illinois University site at this URL, as of 22 February 2002: 
<http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu> (Link opens in new window.)  

34 83 U.S. 36, at 71 (1872). 

35 166 U.S. 226 (1897). 

36 Id. at 234. Justice Harlan cited U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, at 554 (1875) and Leeper v. Texas, 139 U.S. 462, at 468 (1891). 

37 Id. at 234. 

38 Id. at 246 

39 Lochner v. People of State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, at 53 (1905). 

40 Id. 

41 Id. at 69. 

42 Id. at 59. 

43 Id. at 73. 

44 Id. at 76. 

45 MacLeish, Archibald and Prichard, E.F., editors, Law and Politics: Occasional Papers of Felix Frankfurter, 1913-1938 15 (1971). 

46 Berger, Government By Judiciary 290-291 (1997). 

47 Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 268 U.S. 652, at 666 (1925). 

48 Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530, at 538 (1922). 

49 Charles Warren, "The New 'Liberty' Under the Fourteenth Amendment," Harvard Law Review, 39 (February 1926) 432-33, cited in Leuchtenburg, The Supreme Court Reborn 245 (1995). 

50 Near v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, at 707 (1931). (Emphasis added.) 

51 Id. at 723. 

52 Hurtado v. People of State of California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). 

53 "[I]f in the adoption of [the fourteenth] amendment it had been part of its purpose to perpetuate the institution of the grand jury in all the states, it would have embodied, as did the fifth amendment, express declarations to that effect." Id. at 535. 

54 Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900). 

55 Id. at 583. 

56 "The objection that the proceeding by information does not amount to due process of law has been heretofore overruled, and must be regarded as settled by the case of Hurtado v. California." Id. at 584. 

57 "Trial by jury has never been affirmed to be a necessary requisite of due process of law. In not one of the cases cited and commented upon in the Hurtado Case is a trial by jury mentioned as a necessary part of such process." Id. at 603. 

58 Id. at 586. 

59 Id. at 608. 

60 Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 , at 62 (1947). 

61 Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, at 114 (1908). 

62 Id. at 124. 

63 Id. 

64 Brown v. State of Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936). 

65 The spelling of Raymond Stuart's name is given as "Stewart" in the Brown v. Mississippi decision, but the local newspaper in Meridian, Mississippi, reported it as "Stuart," as cited in Richard C. Cortner, A "Scottsboro" Case in Mississippi 13 (1986).

66 The decision was not unanimous; the sickening details of the case were recorded for history in the dissenting opinion of Judge Virgil A. Griffith, joined by Judge William D. Anderson. 

67 See note 61, above.

68 291 U.S. 97 (1934). The quoted line is at 105.

69 297 U.S. 278, at 285 (1936).

70 Chief Justice Hughes cited Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, at 316 (1926). 

71 297 U.S. 278, at 285-6 (1936). 

72 Id. at 286. 

73 Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). 

74 Id. at 71. 

75 Id. at 51. 

76 Id. at 56. 

77 Id. at 67. 

78 Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937). 

79 Id. at 329. 

80 Justice Cardozo cited the 1897 Chicago railroad case: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226. 

81 302 U.S. 319, at 329. 

82 Id. at 325. 

83 Id. 

84 Hamilton v. Regents of The University Of Calif., 293 U.S. 245 (1934). 

85 De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937). 

86 Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). 

87 Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, at 50 (1947). 

88 Id. at 71. Justice Black's analysis of the records of the 39th Congress would be challenged two years later by Professor Charles Fairman in a Stanford Law Review article ("Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?" 2 Stanford Law Review 5 [1949]) which has been widely regarded as definitive. "Charles Fairman demolished Justice Hugo L. Black's opinion in the Adamson case on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights as limitations on the states," wrote constitutional historian Leonard W. Levy. (Levy, Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution 300 [1988]). Constitutional scholar Alexander Bickel called Fairman's article "conclusive." (Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 102 [1962]). See also Berger, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights 8 (1989). Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting in the 1968 case of Duncan v. Louisiana and joined by Justice Potter Stewart, wrote, "The overwhelming historical evidence marshalled by Professor Fairman demonstrates, to me conclusively, that the Congressmen and state legislators who wrote, debated, and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment did not think they were 'incorporating' the Bill of Rights." (391 U.S. 145, at 174 [1968]). 

89 332 U.S. 46, at 89 (1947). 

90 Id. at 65. 

91 Joseph P. Lash, From the Diaries of Felix Frankfurter 83 (1975). 

92 Bernard Schwartz, Super Chief: Earl Warren and His Supreme Court--A Judicial Biography 85 (1983). 

93 Ibid., p. 74. 

94 Richard Kluger, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality 601, 624 (1976). 

95 Schwartz, Super Chief 78 (1983). 

96 Lash, From the Diaries of Felix Frankfurter 83 (1975). 

97 Kluger, Simple Justice 656 (1976). 

98 Lash, From the Diaries of Felix Frankfurter 84 (1975). 

99 Schwartz, Super Chief 86-87 (1983). 

100 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 

101 Id. at 489. 

102 Id. at 492. 

103 Id. at 493. 

104 Id. at 495. 

105 See note 29, above. 

106 Fairman, History of the Supreme Court, Part One 1177 (1971). 

107 Ibid., p. 1193. See also Berger, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights 26-27 (1989); Berger, Government by Judiciary 133-137 (1997). 

108 Earl Warren, The Memoirs of Chief Justice Earl Warren 306-307 (1977). 

109 Garnes v. McCann, 21 Ohio 198 (1871); Cory et al v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (1874); State ex rel Stoutmeyer v. Duffy, 7 Nevada 342 (1872); Ward v. Flood, 48 California 36 (1874); People ex rel King v. Gallagher, 93 N.Y. 438 (1883); Bertonneau v. The Directors of City Schools, 3 Woods 177 (Federal) La. (1878). These six cases are discussed in detail in "Did the Court Interpret or Amend?" contained in Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, We the States 321-363 (1964). 

110 Alfred Avins, editor, The Reconstruction Amendments' Debates 200 (1967), cited in Berger, Government by Judiciary 189 (1997). 

111 Fairman, History of the Supreme Court, Part One 1259 (1971). 

112 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2. 

113 Warren, Memoirs 3 (1977). 

114 347 U.S. 483, at 495 (1954). 

115 Warren, Memoirs, 297 (1977). 

116 Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78: "The judiciary...can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." The Federalist, Modern Library edition 504 (1937). 

117 William E. Leuchtenburg, A Troubled Feast: American Society Since 1945, Revised Edition, 96 (1979). 

118 Schwartz, Super Chief 112-3 (1983). In his 1977 memoirs (The Memoirs of Chief Justice Earl Warren 291), Warren said Eisenhower used the phrase "big, overgrown Negroes," but Schwartz says the chief justice "toned down" the language for publication. 

119 Chief Justice Warren cited seven separate studies with titles like "Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development" in Footnote 11 of the Brown decision. 347 U.S. 483, at 494 (1954). 

120 Federalist No. 25, Modern Library edition 158 (1937). 

121 347 U.S. 497, at 500 (1954). 

122 H. Syrett & J. Cooke, editors, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 35 (1962), cited in Raoul Berger, Selected Writings on the Constitution 134, 246 (1987). 

123 Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, at 27 (1949). 

124 Id. at 26. 

125 Leuchtenburg, The Supreme Court Reborn 254 (1995). 

126 Schwartz, Super Chief 392 (1983). 

127 Ibid., p. 393. 

128 Letter from William J. Brennan to Tom C. Clark, May 1, 1961. Tom C. Clark Papers, Tarlton Law Library, University of Texas; cited in Schwartz, Super Chief 395 (1983). 

129 Note from Hugo L. Black to Tom C. Clark, undated. Tom C. Clark Papers, Tarlton Law Library, University of Texas; cited in Schwartz, Super Chief 395 (1983). 

130 338 U.S. 25 at 33 (1949). 

131 Letter from Potter Stewart to Tom C. Clark, May 1, 1961. Tom C. Clark Papers, Tarlton Law Library, University of Texas; cited in Schwartz, Super Chief 396 (1983). 

132 Letter from John Marshall Harlan to Tom C. Clark, May 1, 1961. Tom C. Clark Papers, Tarlton Law Library, University of Texas; cited in Schwartz, Super Chief 396 (1983). 

133 Letter from Tom C. Clark to John Marshall Harlan, May 4, 1961. Tom C. Clark Papers, Tarlton Law Library, University of Texas; cited in Schwartz, Super Chief 397 (1983). 

134 Letter from Hugo L. Black to Tom C. Clark, June 15, 1961. Tom C. Clark Papers, Tarlton Law Library, University of Texas; cited in Schwartz, Super Chief 397-8 (1983). 

135 Letter from Tom C. Clark to Hugo L. Black, June 15, 1961. Tom C. Clark Papers, Tarlton Law Library, University of Texas; cited in Schwartz, Super Chief 398 (1983). 

136 Justice Clark wrote in his draft opinion, "the criminal will go free, if he must, but he will be freed by the law." Tom C. Clark Papers, Tarlton Library, University of Texas; cited in Schwartz, Super Chief 394 (1983). 

137 367 U.S. 643 (1961). 

138 J. Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 2nd ed., (Washington D.C.: U.S. Congress, 1836), 2:362, cited in Raoul Berger, "The Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause," in Hickok, The Bill of Rights 305 (1991). 

139 Congressional Globe 1120 (39th Congress, 1st Session, 1866), cited in Raoul Berger, Death Penalties, toExcel edition, 25 (1999). For a long list of similar statements by various Supreme Court justices during the 20th century, see ibid., Chapter 2, note 79, at p. 26. 

140 "The number of cases on the Supreme Court's docket approximately tripled from the 1951 term to the 1971 term, and the rate of increase was much greater in the second of those two decades. At the 1951 term, the Court had 1,353 cases before it clamoring for review. At the 1961 term, the number was 2,570. At the 1971 term, it was 4,515." Alexander M. Bickel, The Caseload of the Supreme Court And What, If Anything, To Do About It 5 (1973). 

141 316 U.S. 455, at 461 (1942). 

142 Id. at 473. 

143 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). 

144 Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964). 

145 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 

146 "The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him." Id. at 437. 

147 391 U.S. 145 (1968). 

148 Id. 

149 Id. at 148. 

150 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). All the citations in this paragraph are Justice White's. 

151 See, e. g., Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). 

152 See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). 

153 Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964). 

154 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). 

155 Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967). 

156 In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948). 

157 Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965). 

158 Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967). 

159 381 U.S. 479 (1965). 

160 Id. at 484. 

161 Id. at 486. 

162 Id. at 500. 

163 Id. at 527. 

164 Id. at 530. 

165 Id. 

166 Id. at 491. 

167 Id. at 529. 

168 Id. at 492. 

169 Justice Goldberg cited Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, at 524 (1960). 

170 Justice Goldberg cited McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, at 196 (1964) and Schneider v. Irvington, 308 U.S. 147, at 161 (1939). The paragraph is found at 381 U.S. 479, at 497 (1965). 

171 381 U.S. 479, at 513 (1965). 

172 Federalist No. 78, Modern Library edition 504 (1937). 

173 Federalist No. 39, Modern Library edition 249 (1937). 

174 381 U.S. 479, at 501 (1965). 

175 Federalist No. 41, Modern Library edition 268-9 (1937). 

176 410 U.S. 113, at 129, 152 (1973). 

177 393 U.S. 503 (1969). 

178 Id. 

179 Id. at 509. 

180 Id. at 515. 

181 Id. at 516. 

182 Id. at 518. 

183 Jefferson County School District superintendent Jane Hammond told the Denver Post, "I visited the students there and it appeared to be a creating environment, where students feel safe." Mark Obmascik, "High School Massacre - Columbine bloodbath leaves up to 25 dead." The Denver Post, 21 April 1999: A-01. 

184 "A governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government and furthers an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedom is no greater than is essential to that interest." United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). 

185 Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991). 

186 Id. at 560-1. 

187 John F. Decker, Revolution to the Right: Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence During the Burger-Rehnquist Court Era vii (1992). 

188 Leuchtenburg, A Troubled Feast 261 (1979). 

189 Leonard Levy, Against the Law: The Nixon Court and Criminal Justice 4 (1974). 

190 Decker, Revolution to the Right vii-viii (1992). 

191 405 U.S. 156 (1972). 

192 Id. at 156-7, footnote 1. 

193 Id. at 163. 

194 Id. at 164. 

195 Id. at 156-7, footnote 1. 

196 Raoul Berger, Congress v. The Supreme Court 1-4 (1969). See also Raoul Berger, "Insulation of Judicial Usurpation: A Comment on Lawrence Sager's 'Court-Stripping' Polemic," 44 Ohio State Law Journal 611-647 (1983), reprinted in Raoul Berger, Selected Writings on the Constitution 230-262 (1987). 

197 Leuchtenburg, The Supreme Court Reborn 134-5 (1995). 

198 304 U.S. 64 (1938). 

199 40 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1 (1842). 

200 "Throughout that long period the federal judiciary, as we now see it, encroached upon the authority of the several states, producing a considerable dislocation in our federal system." Charles Fairman, American Constitutional Decisions, Revised Edition, 170 (1950). 

201 304 U.S. 64, at 79 (1938). 

202 See note 30, above. 

203 Columnist William Raspberry wrote, "We've all got our scary Halloween monsters. Here's mine: A U.S. Supreme Court with five justices whose politics, reasoning and opinions echo those of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Unfortunately, my monster has a very good chance of becoming real. Indeed Texas Gov. George W. Bush has promised to make it real. Not only has he been using that hair-raising phrase 'strict constructionist' to describe the kind of people he would appoint to the federal courts, he's actually said Scalia and Thomas are his prototypes. And what's so scary about that? Nothing--unless you happen to recall a previous invocation of strict constructionism during the Nixon era, when that phrase was taken (by some of us, at least) to signal a pulling back from such things as desegregation." ("Fright Court." Washington Post, 27 October 2000: A35). The New York Times warned in an editorial, "guarantees of civil rights and reproductive freedom took years to build. They could be undone in a flash by a pliable and inexperienced president driven by a highly ideological Congress." ("Al Gore for President." New York Times, 29 October 2000: 4:16). Al Gore said during a debate with George W. Bush, "when the phrase 'strict constructionist' is used, and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words." (Neil A. Lewis, "Presidential Candidates Differ Sharply on Judges They Would Appoint to Top Courts." New York Times, 8 October 2000: 1:28). Jeffrey Rosen wrote, "the vote of a single new justice could decide whether or not race-conscious admissions in public schools and universities are permitted in America." ("The Next Court." New York Times, 22 October 2000: 6:74). 

204 Farewell Address, September 19, 1796. The speech can be found online at the University of Virginia Web site at this URL, as of 22 February 2002: 
<http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html>  (Link opens in new window.)